Many foreign media analysts saw the
ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention by the U.S.
Senate as a solid victory for President Clinton, but some worried about the "partisan" process by
which
the convention was ratified and pointed to the dangers posed by "rogues" such as Libya, Syria,
Iraq and
North Korea. British, German, Belgian and Swedish pundits hailed the vote as "a great foreign
policy
triumph for President Clinton" and "a victory over the isolationists among the Republicans."
Several
Europeans singled out Madeleine Albright and Trent Lott for praise also. Commenting on
Senator
Helms' opposition to the treaty, right-of-center Die Welt of Berlin argued that the vote
was "likely to
signal the end of the Helms era." But New Delhi's nationalist Hindustan Times
concluded that President
Clinton had "caved in" to Senator Helms' "demand for a major restructuring of the foreign policy
apparatus" in order to get the treaty on the floor. Right-of-center Main-Echo of
Aschaffenburg wrote
that the ratification of the convention had been "sucked into the maelstrom of shortsighted
partisan
policy." Complaining that "the U.S. government had to use all its persuasive power before...the
final
vote," centrist Mannheimer Morgen asked, "What will it say about the internal state of
the last
superpower if something is now sold as a triumph which is self-evident?"

Concerns about Russia's failure to ratify the convention by April 29 came mostly from
Russian
commentators themselves, such as Moscow's reformist Segodnya. It noted that "the
[American] senators
outsmarted the Duma guys" and complained about "Russia--for the first time in her
history--finding
herself outside of a major international disarmament agreement." Reformist, business-oriented
Kommersant Daily argued that "despite the delayed ratification, Russia is unlikely to
stand aloof from
what the member-countries of the Chemical Weapons Convention might decide to do," but it
warned that
"Russia risks having to apply the rules of international inspection she may find inappropriate."

Most commentators were far less worried about Russia than "rogues" such as Libya, Iraq,
Syria, and
North Korea, which had not signed the convention and which might use "the atomic bomb of the
poor
countries." Munich's centrist Sueddeutsche Zeitung worried about Iraq and Libya
which, "partly with
German support, continue to produce chemical weapons and are willing to use them."
Government-owned Seoul Shinmun signaled, "Our main concern is North Korea and
the fact that Seoul is fully
exposed to the North's chemical weapons." New Delhi's centrist Hindu cautioned
about the "great
difficulty in effecting a foolproof detection of the clandestine production of chemical weapons."
Tel
Aviv's independent Haaretz warned that the convention "provides no real defense
against terror groups
that might decide to use biological and chemical weapons" and flatly stated, "No country is more
susceptible than Israel." Tel Aviv's mass-appeal, pluralist Maariv warned that a "nerve
gas" attack would
be "the last thing any living Syrian would be doing this side of hell" and urged the U.S. to do
more to
"prevent the proliferation of nonconventional knowhow by greedy experts who learned their
lethal craft
behind the Iron Curtain during the Cold War."

This survey is based on 47 reports from 14 countries, April 15-30.

EDITOR: Bill Richey

EUROPE

RUSSIA: "Russia's Plea May Not Be Heard"

Marina Kalashnikova said in reformist, business-oriented Kommersant Daily
(4/30): "Despite the
delayed ratification, Russia is unlikely to stand aloof from what the member-countries of the
chemical
weapons convention might decide to do. Therefore, Russia 'counts on cooperation and regard for
her
interests.' It may happen, though, that the chemical weapons ban conference, due to meet in the
Hague
on May 6, will ignore Russia's plea and choose to punish her for not catching up with the
disarmament
process. Russia risks having to apply the rules of international inspection she may find
inappropriate."

"Clinton Cares About U.S. Interests, Yeltsin Doesn't About Russia's"

Reformist Izvestia (4/26) ran this comment by Viktor Litovkin: "The (U.S.)
administration and personally
President Clinton did their utmost to make doubting congressmen see a need for joining the
Chemical
Weapons Convention. The Russian president's administration and personally Boris Yeltsin
confined
themselves merely to submitting the instruments of ratification to the Duma. Why bother? It is
not an
election to office. It is only Russia's long-term interests. This means that either we don't care
about our
interests or we don't care to see them."

"Defeat For Russia"

Nikolai Zimin in Washington and Alexander Koretsky filed for reformist Segodnya
(4/26): "A many-month standoff between Russia's Duma and the U.S. Senate ended in a
complete defeat for Russia. The
senators outsmarted the Duma guys by ratifying the convention at the last moment. Trying to
explain its
failure, the Duma refers to a (nonexistent) force majeure. Anyhow, the United States will now
try to use
the chemical weapons ban organization's leading bodies to take control of Russia's chemical
manufacturers. The Duma has got itself in trouble, with Russia--for the first time in her
history--finding
herself outside of a major international disarmament agreement."

"Woeful Results Of Procrastination"

Dr. Lev Fyodorov wrote in reformist weekly Obshchaya Gazeta (4/24): "The
Chemical Weapons
Convention that was signed by many countries, including Russia and the United States, already
on
January 13, 1993, is to enter into force on April 29.... As always, we have tarried.... We need
assistance
also in selecting the technologies for the destruction of chemical weapons. It is necessary for the
commencement of this work to be preceded by the creation in Russia of a proper legal
environment, by
the appearance of a system of hygienic standards and also of instruments that could be placed
right next
to the chemical arsenals and ensure the observance of these standards and protect the population.
In
April 1987 Mikhail Gorbachev announced that our country is beginning to rid itself of chemical
weapons. But nothing has been done. After April 29, 1997 we will, however, start destroying our
stockpiles of 40,000 tons. And we will have to do this on schedule by April 2007."

"U.S. Seeks Excuse To Save
Chemical Arsenal"

Reformist Izvestia's Viktor Litovkin, commenting (4/17) on the French daily
Le Figaro claiming with
reference to U.S. sources that Moscow continues experimenting with chemical weapons, cited
Dr.
Anatoly Kuntsevich, a leading Russian scientist: "This publication is provocative and false
through and
through. Our difficulties are strictly financial. Russia lacks the money to meet all requirements
under
the convention. The United States does not have such problems. It has the money and fine
facilities.
Delays with the ratification of the convention by the U.S. Congress may be due to the Americans
having
secretly produced a new chemical weapon

which they seek an excuse to keep. The article in Le Figaro could provide such a
'provocative excuse.'"

"Why Accuse Moscow, Not Washington?"

Yury Kovalenko in Paris filed this report for reformist Izvestia (4/17), citing the
chairman of Russia's
Union for Chemical Security: "We don't know what to do with the 40,000 tons of chemical
weapons
already stockpiled. To produce new poisons would be madness. The Russian Defense Ministry
has
resisted the program for the destruction of chemical weapons, seeing them as a means to pressure
the
West.

"Dr. Anatoly Kuntsevich, quoted in the same report, said: "The State Duma will probably
not ratify the
international convention. With the army having no money to feed the soldiers, where will it get
the
billions of dollars needed to eliminate the chemical arsenal? The Americans have not ratified the
convention either. They have made great headway in creating new chemical agents recently.
Why is it
always Moscow which is to blame, not Washington?"

BRITAIN: "Clinton Wins Chemical Ban Victory"

The centrist Independent (4/25) reported: "President Clinton appeared to be on the
verge of a major
political victory last night as a series of Senate votes indicated that the United States would
agree to join
a global ban on chemical weapons.... Mr. Clinton sent a letter to the leader of the Republican
majority
in the Senate, Trent Lott, promising to withdraw the United States from the treaty if it resulted,
as some
of it opponents predicted, in the proliferation of chemical weapons."

"Albright Deserves To Win"

Edward Mortimer opined in the independent Financial Times (4/23): "Mrs
Albright has pulled out all
the stops, reminding television and radio interviewers across the country that the treaty 'has
made in the
USA' all over it.... Others have suggested the (treaty) decision is a 'defining moment' in U.S.
foreign
policy, similar to those of 1919 and 1947. Now, American leadership in the chaotic post-Cold
War
world is at stake, and the issue is whether the United States will carry on with a multilateral
approach to
one of the most dangerous aspects of that world, the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction. Both
on the merits of the argument and for her skill and verve in addressing it, Mrs. Albright
deserves to
win."

BELGIUM: "Lott's Victory"

Washington correspondent Nathalie Mattheiem filed for independent Le Soir
(4/26), "The victory
primarily benefits Republican leader Trent Lott.... For months, the administration negotiated
every inch
of the way with the Republicans. As early as January, the White House sent Madeleine Albright
to Jesse
Helms, the arch-conservative chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, who was hostile to the
treaty....
Someone made him nice gifts: a radical reorganization of the department which had been
refused a few
months earlier; strict control over the reimbursement of U.S. arrears to the UN.... The decisive
factor
was Republican Senate Leader Trent Lott's rallying, made possible by the 'unprecedented' letter
which
the president sent him a few hours only before the vote. The senator achieved a masterful stroke
which
sets the tone for the upcoming negotiations between Capitol Hill and the White House over
domestic and
international issues.... The Senate leader has thereby scored an important psychological victory."

"Credibility Of The Country
And Government At Stake"

In an article written before the Senate vote, Pierre Lefevre observed in independent Le
Soir (4/25): "The
ratification by the United States is, of course, an essential element for the treaty's

effectiveness. Less because it forces Washington to destroy its own stocks: Because of a
law dating
back to 1985, the United States is pledging to destroy all its chemical weapons by the year 2004.
Less
because the credibility of the country and of its government is at stake: While the convention
was
negotiated by the Reagan and Bush administrations, the United States could indeed, for lack of
ratification, find itself in the camp of 'pariah' countries. A U.S. abstention would mainly serve as
a
pretext for other countries, including Russia, not to ratify. Moreover, if it were to ratify the treaty
only
after April 29, the United States could no longer belong to its executive bodies. Yet, it is quite
obvious
that its role will be essential in enforcing the convention and identifying possible cheaters."

GERMANY: "The Atomic Bomb Of The Poor Countries"

Regional radio Bayerischer Rundfunk of Munich (4/30) featured the following commentary
by A.
Ewers: "The treaty goes far above the others, for example the nuclear nonproliferation treaty. It
is a
success, but a delayed success. It is a success, which the Germans helped to generate in large
parts. The
effectiveness of this treaty depends mainly on who is going to join the treaty. The U.S. decision
to join
at the last minute seems to have a positive bandwagon effect. The military use of chemical
weapons is
highly disputed these days. They are easy to produce, but difficult to deal with. That is why
they are
called the atomic bomb of the poor countries. This is the reason why states that do not display
any
interest in joining the chemical weapons treaty are worrying the other states. Those states that
are not
willing to do without chemical weapons ought to be isolated internationally. The chemical
weapons
treaty ought to be valid worldwide. The first step in this direction was just made. This is a
success
which can be built upon."

"The Atomic Bomb Of The Little Man"

Right-of-center Allgemeine Zeitung of Mainz (4/30) commented: "Only half of
the UN member states
agreed to destroy their chemical weapons by the year 2007. Not only those states accused by the
United
States, Iraq, Libya and North Korea, would like to fall back on the 'atomic bomb of the little
man' and
escape international control. To make the world a little bit safer it is time to pressure these
states. This
devil's weapon has to be destroyed worldwide. Especially since this ban on chemical weapons,
with
strong support from Germany, nurtures the hope that international treaties for disarmament do
not need
to remain an utopia. The goal of all UN member states ought to be the nonproliferation treaty,
but also
the ban on atomic testing."

"Foreign Policy Success For Clinton"

Klaus-Dieter Frankenberger remarked in an editorial in right-of-center Frankfurter
Allgemeine (4/26),
"It would have been a huge mistake if the U.S. Senate had rejected the Chemical Weapons
Convention....
(Now it has approved it) and the vote of the Senate is also a foreign policy success of the
Clinton
administration.... We can draw one conclusion from this affair already: With the necessary
energy,
Clinton can also find a majority for his favorite subject: NATO's enlargement."

"Too Early To Cheer"

An editorial in centrist Sueddeutsche Zeitung of Munich (4/26) stressed, "After a
long, indecent domestic
policy haggling, the Republican-dominated Senate approved the convention. President Clinton is
cheering...but it is too early to celebrate. The value of the agreement is not measured by good
will,
which 160 states demonstrated in 1993, since not even half of them has let deeds follow words
and
ratified the treaty. And it is one of the less important problems that Russia...has so far not
signed it,
since the majority in the Duma seems to be willing to ratify it. But there is a lack of money to
implement the treaty.... However, the real threat stems from states such as Iraq or Libya, which,
partly
with German support, continue to produce

chemical weapons and are willing to use them. A renunciation of the 'nuclear bomb for the
poor' is not
in sight."

"Political Reason Gained Upper Hand"

Manfred Rowold judged in an editorial in right-of-center Die Welt of Berlin
(4/26):

"With the hardly fought but clear majority
of votes...political reason gained the upper hand in
Washington.... The debate and the vote in the Senate, which was influenced until the last
moment by
apparent concessions of the often underestimated tactical player Bill Clinton...is likely to signal
the end
of the Helms era. Jesse Helms, the so far powerful, ultra-conservative chairman of the Foreign
Relations
Committee in the Senate...represents the U.S. distrust of multilateralism. But the ratification of
the
chemical weapons treaty represents a no-confidence vote against Helms."

"Effect On The Russian Duma"

Jochen Siemens of left-of-center Frankfurter Rundschau (4/26) argued: "This
treaty is right and
important and--through the ratification of the U.S. Senate--it also gets an international
momentum which
will have an effect on the Russian Duma, too.... In addition, the ratification in the U.S. Senate
is also a
victory over the isolationists among the Republicans. Although their Presidents Reagan and
Bush set the
course for this disarmament treaty, an influential group of U.S. senators stuck to their unilateral
security
concept of U.S. strength. The fact that President Clinton succeeded in pushing back this
influence and
forged a broad, bipartisan majority for the ratification of the treaty is a success not only for his
foreign
policy concept but also an advantage for mankind."

"Political Climate In Washington"

Right-of-center Main-Echo of Aschaffenburg (4/26) noted in an editorial: "It is
characteristic of the
momentous political climate in Washington that the chemical weapons treaty, which President
Clinton
wanted to make a cornerstone of his security policy, has now been sucked into the maelstrom of
shortsighted partisan policy. The competitive restrictions for the U.S. chemical industry, which
were
used by archconservative critics against the treaty...were obviously only a pretext. It is very
likely that
these critics wanted to demonstrate that the United States, as the last remaining superpower,
should have
the right not to be subject to the same rules as the rest of the world. And the critics also left no
doubt
about the fact that they wanted to compromise Bill Clinton, whom they do not like, and restrict
his
foreign policy latitude."

"Triumph?"

Centrist Mannheimer Morgen (4/26) has this to say: "The U.S. government had to
use all its persuasive
power before there was the final vote in the Senate.... People in Washington now say that the
vote was
a triumph for President Bill Clinton. A triumph? What will it say about the internal state of the
last
superpower if something is now sold as a triumph which is self-evident? Obviously, the
Americans
have difficulties standing up for their own ideals. The opposition to the C-Weapon Convention
grew out
of a mixture of distrust and Rambo mentality. America's friends must be frightened to realize
how
autarchic this opposition was."

THE NETHERLANDS: "Dam Against Total Anarchy"

Influential independent NRC Handelsblad editorialized (4/26): "It was a nice
victory for President
Clinton this week, when the Senate approved the ban on chemical weapons.... Sufficient
senators
realized on time that they were busy risking America's credibility.... The system of international
agreements, including that on arms control, has major shortcomings, but it is still also a dam
against total
anarchy."

"Hibernation"

Influential liberal De Volkskrant carried this comment from its Washington
correspondent (4/26): "With
the remarkably difficult acceptance of the chemical weapons ban treaty, politics in Washington
slowly
woke up from a long, deep hibernation. Since the installation of the 105th Congress and the
presidential
inauguration, the approval of the chemical weapons convention has been the first result that the
President
and Congress may feel pleased with.... The chemical weapons debate has made clear that the
Republicans are getting more and more divided about the role the United States should play in
the world
and the foreign policy course.... An exceptionally slow start does not mean too much and
Clinton has
proven more often that he can be very creative. The acceptance of the chemical weapons treaty
could
provide the momentum to make his second term a success and to falsify the history-based
prognosis of
presidents in their second term."

NORWAY: "Clinton
Demonstrates Political Touch"

Conservative Aftenposten commented on the passing of the chemical weapons
treaty in the Senate
(4/26): "Last night, President Clinton scored another important political victory when the Senate
passed
the international treaty banning production, storage and use of chemical weapons.... Clinton is
struggling
with many problems, the Republican majority in both chambers of Congress being one of them.
With
this, however, he has demonstrated that it is possible to establish cooperation across party
limits--limits
which are very untidy and easy to loose sight of, and which often give very unpredictable
results.... This
shows that Clinton is very maneuverable in difficult situations. This maneuverability will
probably come
to his rescue on many instances throughout the remaining years of his presidency."

POLAND: "The Ban With Two Unknowns"

Maria Wagrowska wrote in centrist Rzeczpospolita (4/29): "Despite serious merits
and broad approval,
the unique convention may turn out to be deprived of a greater value. There are two reasons for
that:
One is the stand of Russia, which--apart from the United States--is the only 'chemical
superpower'
officially declaring the possession of this kind of weapon. The other reason is the fact that
among the
nations which probably possess the 'C' weapons only India, Japan and the Republic of South
Africa have
ratified the convention. Libya, Iraq, North Korea, and Syria did not even sign it. It is estimated
that over
20 countries have come into the possession of chemical weapons, a majority in the Middle East
region....
A non-ratification of the convention...deprives Russia of the right of co-deciding the procedures
of
monitoring the observance of that agreement on the ban, and the possibility of inspecting other
countries'
arsenals, including those of the United States.... It does not create the opportunity to gain a
military edge
over the United States because this superpower has much more advanced technology of 'C'
weapons
production. It will not bring any revenues from the trade in components of chemical weapons
because
the convention bans such a trade.

"It is worth remembering, however, that the Russian weapons sold to the Arab countries
which have not
acquiesced to the convention, may lead to the creation of a Moscow sphere of influence in the
Middle
East. Given the possibility of a confrontation between such Arab countries as, for instance,
Syria with
Israel, which is recognized as an ally of America, one can hardly resist the impression that
Russia might
indirectly strain relations with the United States. Serious arguments argue against accusing
Russia of a
knowing non-ratification of the convention. President Boris Yeltsin submitted an appropriate
document
to be ratified, and it was appreciated by the United States which does not attack the Kremlin but
the
Duma. The question of chemical disarmament was one of the agreements reached during the
Clinton-Yeltsin summit in Helsinki. It is treated by Moscow as one of the elements of the
military balance
between Russia and the United States. And finally, Russia being the only nation among all
permanent
members of the UN Security Council which has not ratified the convention, is losing its equal
position
with the United States, Great Britain, France, and China.

Usually, Russia deeply cares about this position. For Russia, the Security Council is the only
international forum where she has an equal status."

"Great Involvement Of Clinton And Albright"

Centrist Rzeczpospolita told its readers (4/26-27) in commentary by Maria
Wagrowska: "By a vast
majority, the U.S. Senate has ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention, one of the key
disarmament
treaties, especially for the security of the Third World. The fact of ratifying the treaty goes much
beyond
the area of arms control. The ruling Democrats as well as the opposition Republicans have
proven that
they can cooperate, not only in the interest of U.S. security, but also that of other countries....
The
ratification would not have happened if it were not for the great involvement of President Clinton
and
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, who were able to win over a skeptical Senate in favor of
their
arguments."

SWEDEN: "Great Foreign Policy Triumph For Clinton"

Stockholm's independent, liberal Dagens Nyheter wrote (4/28): "The U.S. Senate's
decision (to ratify the
CWC) is a great foreign policy triumph for President Clinton, who has put much prestige to bring
about a
U.S. ratification.... However, delight is somewhat subdued due to the fact that rogue states like
Iraq,
Libya, and North Korea have not acceded to the convention. And Russia also is not yet a
signatory
power. But the situation would have been even more worrying without the CWC. When a
convention is
adopted focus will move and noncompliants will be put under pressure; they will have to justify
their
position.... The CWC will not solve every problem. War gas will no doubt continue to be a
scourge for
yet some time. But the soldiers in the field might be able to feel somewhat more secure as of
tomorrow."

MIDDLE EAST

ISRAEL: "Syrian Nerve Gas"

Popular, pluralist Maariv editorialized (4/30): "The nerve gas the Syrians have
been manufacturing and
stuffing their warheads with will never hit us for the very simple reason that Syrian rulers know
that to
send even a single missile of that type against Israel will be the last thing any living Syrian would
be
doing this side of hell.... What should worry us is the fact that the Russian expert who taught the
Syrian
how to produce the nerve gas was not stopped. Israel, and more importantly the United States,
should do
what they can to prevent the proliferation of nonconventional knowhow by greedy experts who
learned
their lethal craft behind the Iron Curtain during the Cold War."

"Israel Under Chemical Pressures"

Senior defense analyst Zeev Schiff opined in independent Ha'aretz (4/30): "The
new chemical weapons
treaty provides no real defense against terror groups which might decide to use biological and
chemical
weapons. Needless to say, no country is more susceptible than Israel to attacks by such terror
groups....
Furthermore, Israel faces greater dangers than most other nations from the group of countries,
such as
Syria, which are producing nerve gas, have not signed the treaty and consider themselves at war
with
Israel.... The Americans said that if their soldiers come under chemical weapons attack, they will
use all
other hard measures at their disposal, in other words--nuclear retaliation. This exactly is the
language
Israel should employ."

warheads. The accusations are nothing but an attempt to district attention from Israel's
arsenal. The
accusations also help Israel in drawing attention away from the obstacles to the peace process
which she
has created. Israel is mistaken in thinking that the new accusations will be believed. Similar
accusations
were made against Egypt in the past and were believed by none but Tel Aviv. Israel should
desist from
fabricating those lies and admit to the reality because her house is made of glass. Israeli nuclear
weapons
are the real danger that threatens the area. Israel's refusal to accept commitments she made in the
peace
process also endangers the security and stability of the area."

EAST ASIA AND
PACIFIC

CHINA: "Destroy Chemical Weapons And Develop Chemical
Industry"

Yuan Lonhua commented in official Communist Party People's Daily (Renmin
Ribao) (4/29): "On April
29 of this year, the chemical weapons treaty will go into effect. This is the first treaty to provide
for a
comprehensive ban and elimination of a whole category of weapons of mass destruction.... The
treaty is
a significant event in promoting international disarmament and safeguarding global peace and
security....
April 29 will one day come to be seen as significant in the history of mankind. The ratification of
this
treaty symbolizes mankind's decision to put an end to the threat of chemical weapons which has
clouded
the world for nearly 100 years."

SOUTH KOREA: "Measures Needed To Remove North Korea's Chemical
Weapons"

The government-owned Seoul Shinmun (4/30) editorialized: "With 164 more
countries getting ready to
ratify it, the future of the chemical weapons treaty seems bright. The gravest problem at this
point is that
Russia has not yet ratified it. Our main concern is North Korea and the fact that Seoul is fully
exposed
to the North's chemical weapons. The international community should prepare effective
measures to
restrain those who have not committed themselves to the treaty."

"The North Should Sign"

The independent Dong-A Ilbo (4/29) editorialized: "After ten years of
negotiations, the chemical
weapons treaty signed in Geneva goes into effect today. As the very first world-wide effort
aimed at
eliminating weapons of mass destruction, the treaty is truly historic. In this sense, it is truly a
dramatic
measure. However, we are concerned that 20 countries possessing the world's largest chemical
arsenals
(including Russia, North Korea, Iraq and Libya) have not signed the treaty. We strongly urge the
North
not only to remove its chemical weapons but also to stop producing them. The North should
sign the
treaty."

SOUTH ASIA

INDIA: "Infighting"

The centrist Telegraph wrote (4/29): "With the United States having ratified the
CWC, mankind is now a
few steps away from abandoning a lethal path that began with the first mass use of poison gas in
World
War I.... An unseemly sideshow to this shining accomplishment in arms control has been India's
stance
on the convention.... India's prevarication was the result of infighting between the Indian
chemical
industry, responsible for the decision to ratify early, and the ministry of external relations,
belatedly
waking up to an infringement of its policy turf.... If India were to withdraw from the convention
it would
have to do so only by violating the treaty, and thus international law. What is of greater concern
is that
New Delhi's policy waffling has given the impression India is a nation that would consider
chemical
weapons an acceptable tool of warfare. This would have put it in the same league as Iraq, Libya,
North
Korea and other international outlaws."

"Hard-Fought Ratification"

Right-of-center Newstime from Hyderabad editorialized (4/27): "The hard-fought
ratification by the U.S.
Senate...of the CWC removes a major question mark over the effectiveness of attempts at
controlling at
least one method of warfare at a global level. It will also hopefully take the wind out of the sails
of those
people who want India to renege on its commitment to the accord, on the plea that other
countries were
not ratifying it. That would be a retrograde step in the extreme.... The fact that China and
Pakistan have
yet to ratify the accord can hardly be used as an argument for withdrawing from an agreement
which has
met all of India's meticulously laid down conditions. The case of America is curious. The CWC
is
literally a 'Made in America' document."

"U.S. And Pakistan Exposed"

Rajiv Nayan wrote in the nationalist Hindustan Times (4/29): "India is one of the
first batch of countries
which signed the CWC when it was opened for signature in January 1993. Undoubtedly, the
draft
Convention had several problems, but it seemed promising, too.... The final draft appeared
different
from both the Geneva Protocol and discriminatory Non-Proliferation Treaty.... It promised
disarmament
in one of the categories of weapons of mass destruction. Again, the Convention provided an
opportunity
not just for chemical disarmament but also for general disarmament....

"In the post-signature period, the entire process of ratification has exposed mainly two
countries--the
United States and Pakistan. It has become evident that the utterances made by the United States
about
disarmament, peace and stability, are nothing but hypocrisy. Similarly, it has become clear that
the
positions taken by Pakistan on NPT, CTBT, nuclear weapons free zone, etc., had hardly anything
to do
with genuine peace. Basically, these were always meant for serving the interests of its master,
namely
the United States."

"Banning Chemical Weapons"

The centrist Hindu's editorial said (4/28): "India should feel relieved at the
ratification of the CWC by
the U.S. Senate since it happily belies fears arising out of the delay over the signing by the major
powers.... Ratification of the treaty actually amounts to only a step toward achieving total
elimination of
chemical weapons within ten years from now.... No technical means are yet available for
detecting the
diversion of militarily significant quantities of chemicals from production meant to meet the
civilian
needs.... Earlier doubts about the willingness of quite a large number of countries to become
signatories
to the CWC arose out of the near-impossibility of verification.... In view of the great difficulty
in
effecting a foolproof detection of the clandestine production of chemical weapons, the 'rogue
states' will
have to be dissuaded from using chemical weapons by ensuring effective protection to the states
facing
the threat of chemical warfare and the imposition of an international embargo on the supply of
products,
technologies and weapons to the aggressor-states. The earlier record of such sanctions may not
be very
encouraging. The sanctions will, however, have to be enforced effectively with a determination
to save
the world from the menace of chemical weapons."

"The U.S. Comes Aboard"

The right-of-center Indian Express editorialized (4/28): "To the hardliners in this
country who
questioned the wisdom of India ratifying the CWC...when the U.S. was making no moves to
come
aboard, the 74 to 26 Senate vote in favor should come as a sobering fact.... As with SALT-II, the
impasse
eventually was broken. With so much to gain in terms of its arms control, world leadership and
trade
agendas, it is difficult to imagine the United States not coming round to doing the sensible
thing.... By
ratifying the treaty when it did, India, too, won the right to choose inspectors.... It is just as
important for
India to show it is not a reluctant recruit to arms control. It chooses in its own light to join or
stay out of
arms control treaties. No arm-twisting

here, no me-too-ism, no defensiveness. It puts more meaning into New Delhi's proclaimed
pursuit of
global disarmament for India to be able to participate in a global effort to eliminate chemical
weapons.
Further, by being well ahead of the other big powers, Russia and China, India can exert moral
pressure
on them and other hold-outs to ratify the treaty.... All this is not to say the treaty is perfect.... But
the
CWC is not so full of shortcomings and biases that it is not worth a try."

"Cold War Mindset Dominates U.S. Policy"

K. Subrahmanyam wrote in the pro-economic-reforms Economic Times (4/27):
"Finally, to the great
relief of the international community, the capricious and anti-internationalist Senate of the United
States
has been cajoled into ratifying the CWC.... It highlights why the U.S. is not in a position to
provide
leadership to the world on disarmament and arms control issues. The treaty had to be sold to the
Senate,
not as a disarmament measure good for all mankind, but because it would enhance U.S. security
against
some terrorists' threat and those from alleged rogue states. The debate in the Senate revealed the
extreme
chauvinism of the America political class.... Other nations, particularly India, should not
negotiate any
arms control or disarmament treaty with the United States unless the U.S. administration has
obtained
two-thirds bipartisan support.... The Senate hearings revealed that the Cold War mindset is very
much in
existence.... The president was able to secure the majority only by buying the Senators.... It was
plain
horse-trading. One cannot rule out the possibility that, as in the case of the Anti-Ballistic Missile
Treaty,
the U.S. strategic community may try to circumvent this commitment at a later date."

"Saner Council"

The centrist Times of India editorialized (4/26): "Now that the U.S. Senate has
ratified the CWC...the
Indian government can breathe a sigh of relief and let its already deposited instrument of
ratification
stand. The Chinese have gotten a ratification from their National People's Congress.... This
leaves out
only Russia among the major stockpilers of chemical weapons.... Even Pakistan may meet the
deadline.
So all's well that ends well. However, the messy manner in which the Indian government went
about the
ratification calls into question our very ability to decide on national security issues which, by
nature, are
trans-ministerial and trans-departmental."

"Chemical Weapons: Knee-Jerk Reaction"

Science editor R. Ramachandran wrote in the pro-economic reforms Economic Times
(4/24): "The
CWC will enter into force on April 29 whether India, which ratified the treaty on September 3,
1996,
likes it or not. In the course of last three weeks, India has all too suddenly raised doubts about
the
effectiveness of the treaty.... To analysts, this sudden Indian turn-around (on the grounds that the
treaty
'lacks universal adherence and representative character') and the threat to withdraw would be
totally
untenable.... If the stated concerns about the treaty's effectiveness are genuine, the question that
naturally
arises is how has the situation changed between September and now to warrant a withdrawal?...
India's
insistence on 'representative adherence' to the CWC would be in sharp contrast to its opposition
to the
same demand made by others in the context of the CTBT."

"India Should Not Withdraw From The CWC"

Dipankar Banerjee, deputy director, Institute for Defense Studies and Analyses commented
in the centrist
Pioneer (4/24): "U.S. ratification is vital to the convention for several reasons.
Hard-liners in the
Russian Duma would not allow it to be ratified till the United States does so. If both major
powers with
their huge arsenals are left out, the treaty will have little credibility.... Where does it place India?
Neither China nor Pakistan has ratified the treaty as yet.... But, there is every likelihood that
China will
ratify soon.... Pakistan's case may be more intriguing.

We need to explore why it has not ratified as yet.... Even then these are insufficient reasons
for
withdrawing from the treaty as some reports in the media seem to recommend. India has taken a
principled position in ratifying the treaty. Having done so, we can hardly let Beijing and
Islamabad
determine India's position and force us to alter course. It is indeed true that disarmament policies
need to
be framed within the national security concerns of the nation and not on moral grounds. But,
chemical
weapons do not strictly come under that criteria.... Besides, the CWC meets all the criteria that
New
Delhi follows for accepting arms control agreements.... Being a part of this convention and
following a
principled position on global disarmament will enable us to continue to play a leading role in the
deliberations around the world."

"CWC: India Should Not Withdraw From Pact If U.S.
Ratifies"

K. Subrahmanyam commented in the centrist Times of India (4/22): "Now that the
United States is
ratifying the (CWC) treaty it would undoubtedly undertake the task of bringing Russia and China
into the
treaty. Britain and France have already ratified it. This is a material change in the situation and
consequently there is no need for India to withdraw its ratification on the grounds that the treaty
will lack
universality and effectiveness without the three major chemical weapon stockpile holders in it....
The
United States will also undertake to monitor the activities of hold-outs, such as Pakistan. While
it may
be difficult to assert that the Indian pressure of holding out the threat of withdrawal of ratification
was
effective, it was possible to justify our stand. With the U.S. ratification that line of action is no
longer a
tenable one. The U.S. Senate is expected to ratify the treaty with a package of 23 conditions.... It
is clear
that while some of the conditionalities are inherently objectionable, they are already incorporated
in U.S.
nuclear and chemical weapons policies. Most of the conditionalities relate to the internal power
equation
between the Senate and the administration. These conditions are external to the convention and
do not
affect its merits. What is significant is the U.S. ratification. Now that is being done. India can
leave its
ratification intact."

"Follow The Moral Path"

Institute for Defense Studies and Analyses Director Jasjit Singh wrote in the right-of- center
Indian
Express (4/22): "The issue is whether India should withdraw ratification or withdraw from
the treaty
after it comes into force.... There are two broad options for India: Withdraw its ratification before
April
29; or, stay with the ratification and give notice of withdrawal from the treaty after it comes into
force
and withdraw from it under the provisions of national security being affected. Either of the two
options
has its costs and benefits. But not taking a clear stand on the issue has greater costs and no
benefits....
India should demand that key countries join the universal disarmament treaty. Failure to do so by
such
states in the context of the defined notice (which would be in keeping with the objectives of the
CWC)
would strengthen India's sovereign right to take steps consistent with its national interests. This
approach
would also enable the country to deal with nuclear disarmament, CTBT, and the proposed Fissile
Material Cut Off Treaty by emphasizing the consistency of principle and policy."

"Harm To U.S. Chemical Industry If U.S. Refuses To Sign"

The nationalist Hindustan Times' editorial maintained (4/21), "(By) not subscribing
to the CWC,
Washington would forfeit the covenant's executive council membership without which American
citizens
would not be eligible to participate in the treaty's enforcement. Keeping away from the CWC
would
invite trade restrictions from even Washington's closest allies and trading partners, and this is
bound to
hit the U.S. chemical industry-- America's single largest exporting sector. The loss would be to
the tune
of billions of dollars in sales, and thousands of jobs."

"Clinton Caved In To Helms's Demands"

An edit-page analysis in the nationalist Hindustan Times by Washington
correspondent N.C.

Menon pointed out (4/21): "A looming confrontation between the White House and the
Senate over
ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention has been averted, but at a cost to the
administration:
President Bill Clinton caved in to Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman Jesse Helms's
demand
for a major restructuring of the foreign policy apparatus."

"India Is 'Chemically'
Wrong"

D. Sridhar, Director of the Dyan Prakash Institute of Strategic Studies in Pune wrote in the
right-of-center Indian Express (4/19): "The CWC...will find New Delhi in an
extremely embarrassing situation,
with the United States, Russia, China and Pakistan continuing to remain outside the convention.
The
unusual haste shown by New Delhi to deposit its Instrument of Ratification (IOR) on September
3 to
become the 62nd country to do so has landed India into an avoidable but NPT-like situation....
New
Delhi should, before it is too late, seek to redress this unnecessary step by unequivocally stating
that it
reserves the right to opt out from the convention if India's neighbors and the United States and
Russia do
not ratify the CWC by April 29."

"Without U.S., Russia And China, CWC Will Not Serve Its
Purpose"

In the view of the centrist Pioneer's senior editor Shubha Singh (4/17): "India was
one of the early
signatories of the convention but now, in the run-up to the treaty going into effect, the country
has stated
its intention to review its decision. With the United States and Russia staying out of the CWC,
the meet
loses much of its importance and remains a means to place restrictions on other countries. For
India, the
fact that three neighboring countries--China, Pakistan and Myanmar--would not be party to the
treaty, has
given the issue a different dimension. New Delhi may be forced to reconsider its decision.... It
would be
highly ironic if the CWC were to go into effect without the United States being part of it.... For
without
ratification by the United States, Russia and China, the convention will not serve the purpose it
was
meant to."

"U.S. Hypocrisy On Chemical Arms"

K. Subrahmanyam commented in the pro-economic reforms Economic Times
(4/15): "Though the
United States was one of the main sponsors of the treaty, there is a major debate on in the U.S.
Senate
Foreign Relations Committee on its ratification.... This debate highlights the difficulties of
negotiating
arms control and disarmament treaties with the United States. While in the case of most of the
parliamentary democracies, the stand taken by them can be held to reflect the views of their
respective
legislatures it is not possible to assume the same with respect to the United States. It is not even
certain
that an administration of a particular party with a majority in the legislature can carry the
legislature with
it.... Therefore, this basic constitutional feature often enables the United States to bind other
democracies
in a binding commitment and finally evade it. There is a view in certain sections in India that in
the
absence of ratification by the United States, Russia and China, this country should withdraw its
ratification. That would be a mistake. Then India will be in the same position as the United
States and in
future Indian government's stand on arms control and disarmament issues will not be credible."

PAKISTAN: "Pakistan Should Not Sign"

An editorial in the radical, pro-Iran Muslim (4/27) expressed this view: "Ratifying
the CWC would be
the thin edge of the wedge; Pakistan would open itself to intrusive inspections that could be
extended to
cover inspection and access to nuclear facilities, making a mockery of our not signing of the
Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). The government
is
behaving like a 'drunken elephant' and rushing into decision of strategic importance.... We have
resisted
signing the NPT and there is no reason why we cannot resist ratifying the CWC, even if India
(signs it)....
It is the failure of the UN, the NAM

and the OIC, and the unchecked hegemonism of the United States, India, Israel that motivate
countries to
seek...weapons of mass destruction. As long as this triaxis exists, Pakistan should not...sign the
CWC."